A student, 150 and working toward 170: a live LSAT coaching session
This is what LSAT Unplugged coaching looks like. A student came in at 150 (individual sections, not a full sitting), aiming for 170 on the June LSAT. Steve Schwartz coached him live for about 26 minutes on Logical Reasoning, and the whole session and transcript are below.
The numbers here are where A student started and the goal we set together in this session. Individual results vary.
- Student: A student
- Score when recorded: 150 (individual sections, not a full sitting)
- Goal: 170
- Target test: June
- Situation: Works full time, about 3 hours a day of prep 5 to 6 days a week, third week on Steve's study plan, prep test 116 most recently, started error log with PrepTest 101 in January or February
- Focus: Logical Reasoning
- Worked on: flaw, strengthen, weaken, resolve the paradox
What we fixed in this session
If you don't understand the stimulus, reading the choices isn't going to help, it's going to hurt.
Steve Schwartz
This is one session, in the middle of the work. I've been coaching the LSAT since 2005, and every session runs the same way: find the real problem, fix the process, reset the plan.
I diagnosed that her core problem was not fully understanding the stimulus before moving to the answer choices, which was both an accuracy issue and a timing issue.
I found her review notes had no dedicated space for the key takeaway or lesson learned, just categories for the wrong and right answer, and had her add a column for that insight.
The plan: I told her she was starting her practice tests at PrepTest 101 and pushed her to jump ahead to more recent exams since the test has changed over time and recent exams are more relevant.
Where the session landed: She commits to tracking her accuracy percentage over time, adding a takeaway column to her review sheet, and using prephrasing on strengthen and weaken questions.
If your prep looks like A student's did, that's fixable in one session.
Book your free LSAT tutoring lesson
In the student's words
I didn't even think of doing it before, and sometimes I'll prephrase the right answer, I'm like, wow, saved me like 5 minutes.
A student
I guess it forces me to fill out those sections instead of just having right and wrong.
A student
I really need to slow down more and consider what I'm reading instead of just focusing on the questions.
A student
Questions people ask about LSAT Unplugged coaching
What happens in an LSAT Unplugged coaching session?
The coach finds the specific habit that's costing points, fixes the process, and sets the plan for the weeks ahead. In A student's case: her core problem was not fully understanding the stimulus before moving to the answer choices.
Who runs the sessions?
Steve Schwartz recorded this one. Every LSAT Unplugged coach scored 170 or higher on an official LSAT, and students are matched to a coach on learning style and weak areas.
Where can I see finished results?
On the student reviews page at unpluggedprep.com/reviews, with video interviews and official scores.
Learn the fixes yourself: flaw questions, weaken and strengthen questions, paradox questions.
Student reviews and finished results.
Full session transcript
Recorded December 2025.
Student: I'm on my third week on my study plan, and honestly these three weeks have been a lot more successful than my own studying from a textbook within one month. It's been going really well. I do realize there are some weak points, and that's why I booked a call, I saw that email and figured I could benefit from that for sure.
Steve: Cool, happy to help. I'd love to learn more about where you're at and what those weak points are. Broadly speaking, where would you say you're scoring right now?
Student: The last practice test, before schedule, was 150. I haven't done a full practice test yet, just sections.
Steve: So you were at a 150 just taking sections. What would be your ultimate dream outcome or goal score?
Student: The goal is 170 at least.
Steve: 170. So we're looking for roughly 150 to 170, 20 points, with the caveat that the 150 wasn't a full sitting, just individual sections. Is that right?
Student: Yeah.
Steve: How much time do you have till test day, how many months?
Student: I'm taking the test in June, about two-ish months.
Steve: Two and a half months or so. What else do you have going on, working, in school, other obligations?
Student: I work full time.
Steve: How many hours a week are you able to put into prep over the next two and a half months?
Student: Consistently, three hours a day, with one day break being Sunday.
Steve: So two, three hours a day, five or six days a week, maybe 10 to 15 hours overall?
Student: Yeah.
Steve: What would you say is your weakest section or question type?
Student: I'd say flaw seems to be my weakest point, and the overall issue is just understanding the stimulus to its core. I'm reading it, thinking okay I kind of get it, and going to the questions from there. But my understanding of the stimulus isn't great, so then I'm taking more time reading the answers, having difficulty crossing out the wrong ones. That's where I get caught up.
Steve: So the issue is understanding the stimulus fully, having a clear picture of the flaw before going into the choices, and as a result it's taking too much time. It's an accuracy issue compounding into a timing issue.
Student: Yeah.
Steve: Would you say your study plan right now is structured for what you need, or are you not quite sticking with it?
Student: I am sticking with it. Some days I'll complete a full section and go to the next one to get more done. Other days I'm a little busy, so I'll just do maybe two lines and finish it off tomorrow.
Steve: So a little bit some days, catching up other days, but overall trying to follow the plan.
Student: Yes.
Steve: And I saw you're reviewing your mistakes, that's great, we'll talk about that more in a bit. What about tracking progress? Do you feel like you have a system for tracking your accuracy and changes over time?
Student: I think the only real tracking I'm doing is through LawHub and the notes I'm writing. I think I'm very focused on what I'm getting wrong rather than seeing the improvement, if that makes sense.
Steve: Okay, so LawHub is capturing what you're answering relative to the right answer when there's a discrepancy. Is that where you're looking at your practice test scores or accuracy over time?
Student: I'll go back to the type of question and say, where did I go wrong, what could I do better, and try my best to retain that information and apply it to the next type of question.
Steve: So the review document is more where you're looking to get insights from what you're getting wrong, to avoid making the same mistakes again.
Student: Yeah. I find I'm a bit of a slower learner, but once I get it, I fully understand. Getting there is a bit of a battle for me.
Steve: So we've got to give you clarity on making sure you understand exactly what you're getting wrong and why. What's the key takeaway? Once you slow down and capture that, you can avoid the same mistake again.
Student: Yeah, exactly.
Steve: Aside from flaw questions, any other question types or concepts you feel shaky on?
Student: Definitely strengthen and weaken questions, where it says if true, bringing in that new information is a bit of a struggle for me, because I'll think, okay this is a weaken question, I need to find whatever weakens it from the stimulus, and I don't really think about how new information can be pulled in to weaken it. That's where I get caught up.
Steve: So building the habit of recognizing that, based on this question type, it's okay to bring in new information, and fully considering the impact of that new information on the argument in the stimulus.
Student: And that's where I'm lacking, because I don't fully understand the stimulus, so how can I understand what new information can weaken it?
Steve: Let me sum up the action items. Flaw questions is one big area. Then question types where we bring in new information, like strengthen and weaken, and we might add resolve the paradox or sufficient assumption, a whole family of question types. And there's making sure your review process is fully giving you the key insight, so you're extracting full value out of the questions you get wrong, that you're learning the lesson.
Student: Yes, exactly.
Steve: All of this to serve getting you to a 170 in the next two and a half months, roughly a 20 point increase. Honestly maybe a bit more, because four sections added together don't really make a full exam, we have to consider pacing and endurance on top of accuracy.
Student: Yeah.
Steve: First place to start is progress tracking. I'd want you to capture, for every 20 or 30 questions you get wrong, even drilling by type, what's your accuracy percentage, 60%, 80%, are we seeing progress over time. At a certain point it could be 75% accuracy, and at that point you might want to start doing timed work more. LSAT prep broadly has three phases: accuracy, pacing, endurance. At a certain point we move you into pacing, individual timed sections, then full length timed exams. Without the data we don't know where you are today relative to last week or in general. Is it trending upward? If not, what do we need to shift?
The second big thing is flaw questions, one of the highest yield areas along with necessary assumption and inference. First step, be crystal clear on the classic logical fallacies, correlation causation, confusing necessary and sufficient, ad hominem, circular reasoning, gambler's fallacy. There's a dozen or so, we have lessons on them in the course. Even watching a handful of the lesson videos will give you a quick boost because you'll recognize those faster. That's not comprehensive though, there are also flaws where they fail to consider something, so keeping that mind open: what could be true that they failed to consider that would have an impact.
Student: I guess too, a piece I have is the sequence, starting the question, breaking down the stimulus, that's where I'm kind of lost too. I think I need to learn how to break down the stimulus in my own way, then I can focus on the fallacies and keep my mind open on what's happening.
Steve: That's a fundamental building block, glad you brought that up, it cuts across all question types. Slow it down: what's the conclusion, the evidence, the method of reasoning, how do they get from evidence to conclusion, and how could the evidence be true yet the conclusion false? We consider what they failed to consider, or from the necessary assumption lens, what they didn't bother to state.
Student: I always think to myself, because I really enjoyed the way Judy did her classes, she always mentioned slowing down is speeding up, or however she said it. I really need to slow down more and consider what I'm reading instead of just focusing on the questions.
Steve: Exactly. You've got to understand what the stimulus says, because the choices only make sense in the context of the stimulus. If you don't understand it, reading the choices isn't going to help, it's going to hurt, you're just throwing more information at yourself with no bucket to put it in.
Student: Yes, absolutely.
Steve: That's something to bring into your review process too, making sure you understand what the stimulus was saying, can we paraphrase it, put it in your own words? Then conclusion versus evidence versus the gap.
Student: Yeah, that's a good idea, to break it down.
Steve: For strengthen and weaken, think big picture: doesn't matter how ridiculous it is, what would be the consequence of this new information if it were true? If we took all five answer choices as given, as if part of the stimulus, which would have this particular impact? If you're having a hard time, you can always prephrase, put your own prediction, and see if one of the choices lines up. Ideally it will, it won't always, but it could, and that might help you think more outside the box.
Student: Yeah, definitely, prephrasing has helped me a lot. I didn't even think of doing it before, and sometimes I'll prephrase the right answer, I'm like, wow, saved me like 5 minutes.
Steve: That's magic, right?
Student: Yeah.
Steve: I want to take a look now, dive into your review document. So we have your PrepTest 101 error log, section one, reading comp. You're taking handwritten notes here around the passage, incorrect answer, correct answer. Is this fairly typical of how you take these notes?
Student: Yeah, I usually justify why I chose the wrong answer and then justify why the right answer is right.
Steve: How are you finding that, are you getting the key takeaways from this process?
Student: Yeah, I think I better understand why the answer is correct, and the frame of mind I was in when I chose the wrong answer. It does help.
Steve: How soon after you take a section do you engage in the review?
Student: Right after.
Steve: Same study session, immediately afterwards, good, that way you're fresh on what you were thinking in the moment. Tell me about the different colors, black, pink, green.
Student: Black would be the question I chose and the correct answer, pink would be the wrong answer I chose, and green would be the reason for the right answer.
Steve: Is there a separate key takeaway or lesson-learned section?
Student: No.
Steve: That might be something to add. If, like you said, you slow down and really get the key insight, then you've got it, and that's a lesson you can carry forward. Your process looks pretty consistent question to question, but this one was a little different, tell me about these markings.
Student: This was my attempt to diagram the question, most similar reasoning, so I diagrammed the wrong answer I chose, the right answer, and the passage at the bottom. It was a little all over the place, but I found the correct answer had the same diagramming as the passage.
Steve: That's a good note to take, you understood the logic at the end of the day. But how long did that take?
Student: Too long.
Steve: Right, that symbolic-logic stuff is good for after the fact with untimed work, but I'm not sure how practical it is in timed conditions. You might try forming a more general articulation, as if it were a principle, rather than the symbolic logic.
Student: I think in a class with Lauren, she did a similar question, and the way she formulated it wasn't a diagram, it was looking at the key words, like the conditional words, do not, and it made sense, I can't verbalize it, but it was quick. I think I'll review that in the vault and keep that.
Steve: That sort of verbalization is definitely possible, and worth the extra time because it'll save you time in the long run. It's in line with slowing down, understanding the stimulus, putting it in your own words, then forming that generalized abstraction as a principle and applying it through the choices, looking for one that follows that similar shape of logic. So you have a consistent process, black for the wrong and right answer, pink for the wrong answer, green for the takeaway, that's all good, but I'd add another color for the takeaways specifically.
Student: Okay.
Steve: There are pros and cons to notes by hand versus typing. Handwriting helps you process information better, using multiple senses to form the letters. The downside is it's less templated, though you could upload notes and run optical character recognition with ChatGPT to digitize them. My hope is your takeaways get compiled in one central location, rather than the last three lines of each page, so before a practice test or test day you can quickly scan all your insights as reminders.
Student: One of the instructors talked about an Excel spreadsheet, having everything laid out, and I think I might adopt that, because with my notebooks I'm flipping through everything and it's not very organized. That makes sense.
Steve: I hear you, I'm a paper and pencil person too, or at least a Google doc. But a sheet has a lot to be said for it because it keeps everything structured clearly. On a blank page there's no template you're forced to follow, you're just doing what comes out of your head. But if there are certain key points you always want to hit, like a checklist, which is what we do with the Socratic review method, the sheet works really well because you have a dedicated column or row every time for every LR question or reading comp passage.
Student: I guess it forces me to fill out those sections instead of just having right and wrong. That's good.
Steve: Exactly, there's a lot to do beyond right and wrong. Even within wrong, why was it tempting initially, why did I pick it, and upon reflection, why is it wrong. For the right answer, what was unappealing about it at first glance, and what ultimately makes it correct. You can also paraphrase the stimulus as part of your review, or paraphrase a reading comp passage as a drill, rewrite the entire thing. Not every time, but in some cases, depending on the topic or if it becomes an area of focus.
So, action items: one, track your progress in terms of accuracy, week by week or in sets of 30 questions. Two, flaw questions, review the classic logical fallacies, we have lessons in the course on this. For strengthen and weaken and others of the if-true category, engage in prephrasing to practice thinking outside the box and bringing in new information. And the review process, maybe adopt a spreadsheet or at least a templated checklist: stimulus, stem, why the wrong answer was tempting, why it was wrong, why the right answer was right, why it was unappealing. And separately, for any question, break down what's the conclusion, what's the evidence, what's the gap, how is it possible for the evidence to be true yet the conclusion false.
Student: Yeah, it's good, I appreciate the sequence of things to do, because sometimes I'm just going to jump into it and hope for the best.
Steve: If you take a little extra time up front, you get that much more out of your studying in terms of efficiency, because you've laid the groundwork. Going from 150 ballpark up to 170, 20 points, two and a half months, you've got to have a plan in place, otherwise you risk spinning your wheels and burning through practice material. One more thing as a bonus: you mentioned PrepTest 101 error log, is that where you're starting?
Student: Yeah, that's where I started back in January or February.
Steve: We have PrepTests 101 to 158, plus a handful of drill sets. Where are you now, prep test wise?
Student: The other day I did 116.
Steve: That's a bit more recent. I'd think about jumping ahead to more recent exams, because more recent means more relevant, the test has evolved over time, and I wouldn't want you spending time on the teens and never getting to the 50s.
Student: Oh yeah, that makes sense, because they're newer.
Steve: Exactly. If you've got say 10 weeks till your test and you're doing two exams' worth of material a week, one as an exam and one as practice sections or drills, you might only get to 138 through 158 and never cover 101 to 137, and that's okay. I'd rather you get to the newest and not get to the oldest than the reverse.
Student: Okay, that makes sense as well.
Steve: That was just a little extra thing that came to mind. Before we sign off, what would you say is the biggest takeaway from our call today?
Student: Definitely tracking my progress in terms of accuracy, that will help me understand what I'm doing right compared to wrong. And breaking down the stimulus and asking myself those questions, the prephrasing, I'll definitely take that away after today.
More coaching sessions: Zabdi, 141 to 155, Abigail, 147 to 160, Leah, 153 to 170, Dominic, Alina, 157 to 170. Student results and reviews.
I've written free explanations for every question in LSAT PrepTest 159, 158, 157, 156, 155 and 154, with the right answer and why each wrong answer fails. All LSAT explanations are here.
Enough reading. Try a question. Free LSAT drills, 1 at a time, explained the second you answer. Start free drills
